MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974115946 · doi:10.1097/icu.0b013e32832f8016

Genetics of age-related macular degeneration

2009· review· en· W1974115946 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew Ting, Thomas K.M. Lee, Ian M. MacDonald

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Ophthalmology · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMacular degenerationMedicineBlindnessRetinal pigment epitheliumBioinformaticsPathogenesisDrusenOphthalmologyPathologyRetinalOptometryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) was until recently viewed as a part of the normal aging process; however, we are increasingly aware that genetic factors play a much greater role than previously suspected. This review will provide an up-to-date snapshot of the genetics of AMD to help guide our thoughts about its causes and the risk for family members. RECENT FINDINGS: Epidemiological research and basic bench research have identified pathways of oxidative stress, lipid metabolism and inflammation as playing causative roles in the pathogenesis of AMD. Emerging research is focusing on the biology of the retinal pigment epithelium as secreting pro and anti-inflammatory mediators in the eye. Antivascular endothelial growth factor therapy has dramatically improved the prognosis for neovascular or wet AMD patients. Nutritional supplementation with antioxidants and omega-3 fatty acids has provided treatment options for patients with atrophic or dry AMD. We should expect that some of the response to therapy might be genetically determined. SUMMARY: First-degree relatives of patients with AMD tend to have a higher risk of AMD. Recognizing an inherent genetic risk of AMD in these patients will improve their management and potentially help prevent blindness.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.004

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.164
GPT teacher head0.463
Teacher spread0.298 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations55
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in OphthalmologySame topicRetinal Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207